Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dinesh vs The State Of Karnataka By on 16 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
CRL.RP No. 1080 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1080 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. DINESH,
S/O CHOTU LAL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT SEENAPPA BUILDING,
2ND CROSS, GARUDACHAR PALYA,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
WHITE FIELD POLICE,
Digitally signed by
BENGALURU - 560 048.
SANDHYA S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2017
PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
CRL.RP No. 1080 of 2017
JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.52/2013 THEREBY ALLOW THE ABOVE CRL.A. AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 24.09.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J.M.,
BENGALURU DIST., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1320/2011.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner/accused has preferred this
appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 24.09.2013 passed in C.C.No.1320/2011
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore
District, Bangalore, which is confirmed by judgment dated
22.08.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.52/2013 by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural
District, Bangalore.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Court below.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
23.01.2011 the accused being the driver of the Lorry
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
bearing registration No.KA-21 A-3944 drove the said Lorry
on Hoskote-Kadugodi Main Road in front of Sai Lakshmi
Company in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-03 EQ-
7313 being ridden by the first informant with his wife and
daughter Kum.Chaitra aged about 11 years as pillion
riders, while crossing the road from West to East from
Seegehalli towards Kannamangala, as a result of the
impact they fell down, CW.2 sustained grievous injuries
and their daughter succumbed to injuries and after the
accident, the accused fled away from the spot without
providing medical aid or informed the nearest police
station. Thus the accused has committed offences
punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of Indian
Penal Code and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w Section 187 of
IMV Act. After filing charge sheet, cognizance was taken
against the accused for the alleged commission of offences
and a case was registered in C.C.No.1320/2011. In
response to the summons, the accused appeared before
the Court and was enlarged on bail. The substance of
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
accusation was recorded, having understood the same
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To
prove the guilt of the accused, eight witnesses were
examined as PWs.1 to 8 and nine documents were marked
as Exs.1 to 9. On closure of prosecution side evidence
statement under Section 313 was recorded. Accused has
totally denied the evidence adduced against him, but he
has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
However, during the course of evidence of prosecution
witnesses, two portions of statement of witnesses was
marked as Exs.D1 and D1a. Having heard the arguments
of both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for
the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and
Section 134(a) and (b) r/w Section 187 of IMV Act. For the
offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC the accused
was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC the
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, the
accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
three months. For the offence punishable under Section
304(A) of IPC, the accused was to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default, the accused shall suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of one month. For the offence
punishable under Section 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of IMV
Act the accused was to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two days.
Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and order of
sentence the accused has preferred an appeal before the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural
District, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.52/2013, the
said appeal came to be dismissed on 22.08.2017. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of both the Courts,
the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision
petitioner has submitted his arguments that the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is
contrary to law, the alleged facts and probabilities of the
case, both the Courts have failed to appreciate the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Both
the Courts have failed to appreciate the admissions,
contradictions and omissions. Further it is submitted that
none of the material witnesses have deposed as to the
rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. On the
contrary, during the course of cross-examination of PW.1,
he has categorically admitted that he has not given any
signal at the time of taking right turn of his Motor Cycle.
Further he submits that if really the Motor Cycle dashed
against the Lorry, the right side of the Bumper of the Lorry
ought to have been damaged, but no damages caused to
the right side of the Lorry as per the M.V. Report. The
accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the
rider of the motor cycle, who rode the vehicle in a high
speed and took right turn, as a result, he fell on the road
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
and caused the accident. The Driver of the Lorry has not
at all caused the alleged accident, hence sought for
allowing the revision petition.
5. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP
appearing for the respondent/State submits that the Trial
Court has appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts and convicted the accused.
The Appellate Court has also properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and confirmed
the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial
Court, hence there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the
Trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. On
all these grounds sought for dismissal of this Revision
Petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for
both the sides, the following points would arise for my
consideration :-
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
a. Whether the revision petitioner has made out a
case that the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which is
confirmed by the Appellate Court is illegal,
perverse and not sustainable under law?
b. What order ?
I answer point (a) in the 'affirmative' and point (b) as per
the final order.
7. I have carefully examined the materials placed on
record before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution
that on 23.01.2011 the accused being the driver of the
Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-21 A-3944 drove the
Lorry on Hoskote-Kadugodi Main Road in front of
Sai Lakshmi Company in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the Motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-03 EQ-7313 being driven by the first informant with
his wife and daughter Kum.Chaitra, aged about 11 years
as pillion riders, while crossing the road from West to East
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
from Seegehalli towards Kannamangala. As a result the
rider and pillion riders fell on the road and sustained
injuries, Kum. Chaitra/daughter succumbed to injuries.
Thus the accused has committed the alleged offences. To
substantiate the case of the prosecution, eight witnesses
were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and nine documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P9. PW.1-Venkatesh said to be the
complainant has deposed in his evidence that victim
Kum. Chaitra is his daughter and PW.2-Nalini is his wife.
That on 23.01.2011 at 3.30 p.m. himself, his wife Nalini
and his daughter Kum. Chaitra were proceeding from
Seegehalli to Kannamangala on a Motor Cycle bearing
registration No.KA-03 EQ-7313 and he took a right turn
near Sai Lakshmi Company, at that time, a trailor Lorry
bearing No.KA-21 A-3944 came from the side of Hosakote
at high speed and hit the Motor Cycle. As a result he fell
down and sustained abrasions and his daughter suffered
injuries to her limbs and hands, his wife had suffered
injury to her head, chest and they were taken to Vydehi
Hospital for treatment. His daughter succumbed to
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
injuries, while they were being shifted to Hosakote
Government Hospital. He has filed a report in this regard
as per Ex.P1. Police have also conducted Mahazar as per
Ex.P2. PW.2-Nalini has deposed in her evidence that the
Lorry which caused the accident was coming in a high
speed, which was driven by the accused. Further she has
deposed as to the death of her daughter and also injuries
sustained to her. PW.3-Gopala Lakshmaiah has deposed
as to the Mahazar Ex.P2 conducted by the Police. PW.4-
Manjunatha, PW.5-Srinivasa and PW.6 Sridhar said to be
the attestors to the inquest Panchanama have deposed as
to the inquest panchanama conducted by the Police as per
Ex.P3. PWs.7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers. The
contents of Ex.P1 reveals that when PW.1 took right turn
in front of Sai Lakshmi Company, the accused being the
driver of the Lorry bearing No.KA-21 A-3944 drove the
lorry in a high speed negligently and dashed against the
Motor Cycle. PWs.1 and 2 have not deposed as to the
negligent and rash driving of the Lorry by the accused.
During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he has
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
clearly admitted that he has not given any signal at the
time taking his Motor Cycle towards right turn. Ex.P5-IMV
report reveals that no damages are caused to the right
side front Bumper and right side head light and radiator
grill. PWs.1 and 2 have not deposed as to the exact speed
of the vehicle. Admittedly the Lorry was loaded with
goods. The contents of Ex.P.1 does not reveal as to the
precautionary measures taken by PW.1 at the time of
taking right turn of his Motor Cycle. That in view of
Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no driver of
the Motor Cycle shall carry more than one person in
addition to himself on the Motor Cycle and no such person
shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat
securely fixed to the Motor Cycle behind the driver's seat
with approximate safety measures. The evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 and other prosecution witnesses reveals that
the accident occurred while PW.1 took right turn of his
Motor Cycle in a double road. The accident might have
occurred due to imbalance of the Motor Cycle as PW1
carried two pillion riders i.e., wife and daughter along with
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
him and also did not taking precautionary measures i.e.,
giving signal while taking right turn. The Investigating
Officer has not whispered anything as to the violation of
the provisions of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, by the accused. This conduct of Investigation
Officer reveals that the Investigation Officer has
mechanically filed the charge-sheet against the accused.
Both the Courts below have not property appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.
Accordingly the Revision Petitioner has made out a case
that the Trial Court has convicted the accused without
proper appreciation of the evidence on record in
accordance with the law and facts. The same is confirmed
by the Appellate Court. Hence I answer the above point
(a) in the affirmative.
8. Regarding point (b) for the aforesaid reasons and
discussions, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER
i. This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1929
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C.C.No.1320/2011 dated
24.09.2013 which is confirmed by the I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,
in Criminal Appeal No.52/2013 dated 22.08.2017, are set
aside.
iii. The accused/revision petitioner is acquitted for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 279,
338, 304(A) of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w Section
187 of MV Act.
iv. Fine amount if any deposited by the accused shall be
returned to him accordance with law.
v) Registry to send the copy of this order along with
Trial Court records to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NG
CT:SNN
